This is more than tolerance. This is pluralism. “True Islam” if I’ve ever seen it.


Categories: History, Islam

19 replies

  1. Yes, but please note that building new religious places or renovating old ones is not allowed by the Shariah. They are not to stay forever. They are left by the grace of Allah and their only right to exist is by it.


    • not So Nadir. There is a difference of scholarly opinion on this question. Some Islamic scholars it is true take your position, but others do permit the building and renovation of Churches. There is great diversity of opinion on many subjects amongst the ulema. It is difficult to simplistically say: the sharia says this or that.


    • If that’s the case OK.


  2. Might I ask, what is the earliest source of this quote?


    • 1.Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2007.
      2.Montefiore, Simon Sebag. Jerusalem: The Biography. New York: Random House Inc. , 2011. Print.
      3.The Great Arab Conquests, from Tarikh Tabari


  3. Plurality hmmmm lets see what the Pact of Umar says…Now this is a forgery produced by Muslims as no Christian would ever agree to such absurdity. However this “forgery” has become part of Islamic Law. For instance it is used in the Shafi school, and Islamic scholars use it in their Tasfirs for instance Ibn Kathir relies on it.

    Paul you saying “the scholars disagree” does nothing to help your un historical position, since the scholars can disagree on anything accept what is common knowledge that all Muslims must know. So if a Muslim ruler wants to treat Christians this way as has and is being done to one extant or another. Then western reverts like yourself can not say this is Un Islamic.

    We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
    We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
    We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
    We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
    We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
    We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
    We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
    We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
    We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
    We shall not sell fermented drinks.
    We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
    We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
    We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
    We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
    We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.


    • The first part of the letter :
      “…This is a writing to Umar from the Christians of such and such a city. When You [Muslims] marched against us [Christians],: we asked of you protection for ourselves, our posterity, our possessions, and our co-religionists; and we made this stipulation with you, that we will not erect in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; …..”

      The last part of the letter :
      “…All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement, then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels…”

      I dunno , if I am to understand the said letter , the Christians were the ones who offered such conditions.

      Not good in contract negotiation?


    • Sam Sam Sam Sam, the pact is a MUSLIM forgery. NO Christian or anyone would ever agree to such nonsense.

      The forgery servers its purpose to justify the Muslims brutality and oppression of Christians.

      Sam the only way a Muslim like yourself could believe that Christians or anyone would agree to such a thing is if the alternative would be far worse. Which is even worse than the forgery itself.


    • Do you have any evidence that this is a forgery? because so far seemingly your objection is that ‘no person would agree to it’.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice I’m going to give you the chance to think about your question. REALLY THINK


    • you don’t have an answer do you x[


    • OK you guys got me, the pact of Omar is not a forgery, its a real document demonstrating how Muslims are to treat Christians So much for Paul Williams “This is true pluralism”

      Good Job real good job lol

      Liked by 1 person

    • THAT’S NOT THE PACT OF UMAR (the caliph), It’s a different one!

      As Sir Thomas Arnold stated in his famous book The Preaching of Islam:

      > De Goeje and Caetani have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age


  4. How do you come to the conclusion that the forged document (ie. Pact of Umar) is used to brutalise & oppress Christians? In the first place , it is an agreement which stated that the Christians stipulated the conditions on themselves. To the muslims , such conditions do not come from God (Quran) nor the Sunnah(Prophet Muhammad (saw)).

    Therefore its just a temporal / secular deed of agreement between 2 parties (badly negotiated by the Christians). It is not canonical. How can it be used to justify the mistreatment of Christians down the years?

    You can argue that Ibn Kathir reference it but that is his tafseer. Ibn Kathir’s opinion is not infalliable.

    I think you have been reading too much of Robert Spencer’s drivel.

    There are other documents muslims can turn to if they want to refer to any precedent set. Documents such as
    – the Constitution of Medina
    – The Achtiname of Muhammad (the original document still preserved in St Catherine)
    which are more authoritative to muslims as these have been negotiated and agreed upon by Prophet Muhammad(saw) himself. The conditions in these documents is about 100% opposite to the Pact of Umar.

    The words of Prophet Muhammad(saw) would anytime trump over the Pact of Umar. In addition , the Achtiname of Muhammad is binding till the last of days.

    The Pact of Umar is about equivalent to the Church Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude. However to us muslims , the pact of Umar is nothing compared to
    – the constitution of Medina
    – the Achtiname of Muhammad
    whereas you are stuck with the Church’s Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude


  5. Pretty sure the Pact of Umar is a forgery. It goes against the historical and archaeological data. The following is from Daniel Brown’s, A New Introduction to Islam:

    No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690..

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I do not have a problem whether it is a forgery or its the genuine article. Either way the said document does not have any bearing on me. I agree with you that the document is a forgery.

    However I do have a problem when a person like ‘Sh’ claims that it is a document that is being used as a basis for brutalising & oppressing Christians without any evidence whatsoever.

    Like I stated , this agreement is not canonical therefore not binding whether its a forgery or otherwise.


    • Sam it might not have anything to do with you, and that’s because you are a MUSLIM not a dihmi.

      Sam this document is being used to brutalize and oppress Christians.
      The fact that you so easily defended it as if any Christian or anyone would willing put them selves under such conditions, speaks volumes to your depravity

      Here is what Ibn Kathir says about it in is tasifr on Surah 9:29

      “This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors ﴿of our houses of worship﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit ﴿or betrayal﴾ against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices ﴿with prayer﴾ at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’ When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’

      The Shafi School of Islamic Jurisprudence uses the Pact of Umar to define how Christians are to be treated. Read Book 011.4 or page 608 of this copy of The Reliance of the Traveler.

      So go sell the myth of Islamic tolerance to those that don’t have the knowledge, but don’t come to those that do have the knowledge and try to sell this blatant lie.


  7. LOL …. Sh , I copy paste part of your so called argument

    “.. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors ﴿of our houses of worship﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby…’

    Like I stated before , if you want to argue on such , you need to read carefully – it appears that the Christians were bad negotiators. Why did the Christians made such conditions on themselves? They have not even met on the negotiating table yet wanting to impose such conditions on themselves.

    If I am person on the opposing side I would say – Thank you very much , saves me a lot of my time.

    BTW , Caliph Umar(ra) stated as what is on the caption (as above) …. a complete opposite

    Looks like you just shot yourself in the foot ….. BTW , this so called pact is a forgery as rightfully pointed out

    So much about your perception of muslim tolerance yeah …. ha ha


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: